On ven, 2008-02-15 at 22:49 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:09:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > On ven, 2008-02-15 at 15:50 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Having said that, I agree with you that it makes sense for the TC to not
> > > require 'X + 1', since the elec
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Because of the error you're making. With 6 people, 2/3 of the votes
> is 4 votes, with no error. "more than 2/3" needs 5 votes, or 5/6th.
> So even though the stated requirement is "more than 2/3", the actual
> requirement is "at least 5/6th". The difference
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:09:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> On ven, 2008-02-15 at 15:50 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Having said that, I agree with you that it makes sense for the TC to not
> > require 'X + 1', since the electorate is so small anyway;
>
> I don’t understand why the pr
On ven, 2008-02-15 at 15:50 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I'm not so sure this is an off-by-one *error*; for example, when simple
> majority is required, then a strict 50% against vs 50% in favour result
> should result in the status quo being kept. A simple majority thus needs
> to say "*more* t
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 07:24:50PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The Technical Committee (and those interested in the libc's resolver
> behaviour) are having some trouble because of an off-by-one error in
> the supermajority specification in recent versions of the
> constitution.
>
>
> This was dis
5 matches
Mail list logo
